Posted on 07/24/2003 1:55:39 PM PDT by Mr.Atos
I was just lisening to Medved debating Creationism with Athiests on the air. I found it interesting that while Medved argued his side quite effectively from the standpoint of faith, his opponents resorted to condescension and beliitled him with statements like, "when it rains, is that God crying?" I was reminded of the best (at least most amusing)debate that I have ever heard on the subject of Creationism vs Evolution, albeit a fictional setting. It occurred on the show, Friends of all places between the characters Pheobe (The Hippy) and Ross (The Paleontologist). It went like this...
Pheebs: Okay...it's very faint, but I can still sense him in the building...GO INTO THE LIGHT MR. HECKLES!!
Ross: Whoa, whoa, whoa. What, uh, you don't believe in evolution? Pheebs: Nah. Not really. Ross: You don't believe in evolution? Pheebs: I don't know. It's just, ya know, monkeys, Darwin, ya know, it's a, it's a nice story. I just think it's a little too easy.
Ross: Uh, excuse me. Evolution is not for you to buy, Phoebe. Evolution is scientific fact. Like, like, the air we breathe, like gravity... Pheebs: Uh, okay, don't get me started on gravity.
Ross: You uh, you don't believe in gravity? Pheebs: Well, it's not so much that ya know, like I don't *believe* in it, ya know. It's just...I don't know. Lately I get the feeling that I'm not so much being pulled down, as I am being pushed.
Ross: How can you NOT BELIEVE in evolution? Pheebs: [shrugs] I unh-huh...Look at this funky shirt!!
Ross: Well, there ya go. Pheebs: Huh. So now, the REAL question is: who put those fossils there, and why...?
Ross: OPPOSABLE THUMBS!! Without evolution, how do YOU explain OPPOSABLE THUMBS?!? Pheebs: Maybe the overlords needed them to steer their spacecrafts!
Pheebs: Uh-oh! Scary Scientist Man!
Pheebs: Okay, Ross? Could you just open your mind like, *this* much?? Okay? Now wasn't there a time when the brightest minds in the world believed that the Earth was flat? And up until what, like, fifty years ago, you all thought the atom was the smallest thing, until you split it open, and this like, whole mess o' crap came out! Now, are you telling me that you are so unbelievably arrogant that you can't admit that there's a teeny, tiny possibility that you could be wrong about this?!?
Pheebs: I can't believe you caved. Ross: What? Pheebs: You just ABANDONED your whole belief system! I mean, before, I didn't agree with you, but at least I respected you. Ross: But uh.. Pheebs: Yeah...how...how are you gonna go in to work tomorrow? How...how are you gonna face the other science guys? How...how are you gonna face yourself? Oh! [Ross runs away dejected] Pheebs: That was fun. So who's hungry?
There have been thousands of experiments that show life can evolve and adapt to changing environments. Are you familiar with chemostats and bacteria?
Excluding plants (which are pretty easy to evolve),
So TOE only applies to prokaryotes, other microorganisms and plants...but not animals? Has the Theory of Relativity experimentally verified every situation where it may be applicable, or is it inferred in some instances?
Not really - the few cases where the 'dialect' of the genetic code differs are bacteria, some of which also use amino acids no-one else does. If a particular codon codes for two different, but similar amino acids (eg, both small and hydrophilic), (this could come about via a mutation in the genes for the particular t-rna), the organism could very well survive with an *ambiguous* genetic code, since the proteins produced by either reading would be similar.
There's no reason such a code could not be 'frozen' at a later time. See Watson (or is it Crick - I don't have the book in front of me, and Amazon is down for maintainance) in Mark Ridley's book "Evolution" (very highly recommended; among other essays, it include the original research on sickle-cell, and also Dobzhanski's classic "Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of Evolution")
But then if not all descended, then there must have been a Creator at work eh?
How does this follow? It is possible there were at one time several kingdoms of bacteria with similar but not identical genetic codes that arose independently from the precursor chemical evolution. (If the chemicals are the same, but the code is different, they're still edible) No-one knows at the present time.
The base of the phylogenetic tree may not in fact be a tree, since prokaryotes share dna across 'species'. (Once you get to multicellulars, it does seem to be a tree)
AFAIK all animals, plants and fungi use the same code; I'm not sure about protoctista.
Ever hear of "Liberation Theology"? Plenty of devils, some in clerical vestments, quote Scripture.
Isn't it amazing how some people can get threads turned into a discussion of themselves?
Electronics, as technology, sure has. Transistors rely on tunneling, 'holes', and other non-classical phenomena.
No he didn't. Hitler, and Nazi racial theorists, argued that the "aryan race" was primeval. They didn't want to evolve a new race but to recover an existing one by "purifying" it. They wanted to undo evolution ("race mixing"). They argued that mixing of races was a "sin" against the intent of the "Creator," who had meant the races to stay separate.
It is hard to tell exactly since reptilian genomes have not been completely sequenced. The human genome has been and quite a few simple organisms but very few vertebrates, none of the apes has been completely sequenced although it should be done soon. However, there are vast differences between mammals and lizards. Even taking the number at 25% (which would be the absolute minimum of differences) still means that we should have observed lots of beneficial mutations in the last 150 years amongst the over one million species on earth. We are looking for them. There is a tremendous amount of biological research going on around the world the last 50 years at least and such would have been found.(BTW the 5% for the apes is the latest estimate by an evolutionist).
And what do you mean by 50% different?
In all cases I am speaking of differences in DNA bases. Of course that can get a bit subjective and since there are only 4 bases blind luck would mean at least one out of four times it would be right. It really is a silly way to measure differences, but that is what evolutionists use and when you are trying to disprove someone's theory it is best to agree to most of their assumptions and show that even then, they disprove their statements.
Related to that, the fossil record shows long periods with no changes, and then WHAMO, huge changes suddenly appear.
I am in complete agreement with the above. I was just discussing the point that there is enough time for evolution. I think I show there is not. Let's remember also that each animal, even if similar in features still is different from other species so you need a lot of mutations when you consider the whole range of living things.
Secondly, beneficial mutations are defined as providing selective advantage in either having more surviving offspring, or in having offspring that survive better. However this is something that is hard to see in the wild, since something as small as a slight change in color in a birds pin feathers might make it a more attractive mate. Who would notice in 150 only years?
Well, one thing we have learned for certain in the last 100 years is that the DNA of an organism determines what its features as well as how the organism functions. So any change in features is due to changes in the DNA of an organism. We do look very closely at many species to learn from them. Some of the simpler ones are used a lot because of speed and indeed simplicity which makes it easier to determine their overall functioning. Other more complex ones are studied because they are closer to us - such as rats (and not even PETA makes an argument about killing rats). So a wide spectrum of species is being studied and we should seen something by now.
I argue with the TOE proponents (who push the concept of long periods of gradual microevoluion) that the fossil record does not back that up, but -- those huge changes could cause the big differences you cite. Cause? Unknown.
I agree with that. When one thinks of how many different organs there are in a human being and that each one of them requires quite a lot of DNA coding in order to function at all, the idea of gradual evolution is totally ludicrous. However, Gould's idea that all the parts of a new organ could come together all of a sudden without design by mere chance, is equally silly.
No he wasn't. Darwin graduated, in his adulthood, from being a Christian to a theist, and in his middle age and on from being a theist to being a "free thinking" agnostic, but he never had any use for political radicalism. Darwin was a lifelong Whig (the ancestor to the Republican Party). He was a capitalist, a supporter of markets (like most other classical liberals of the time).
For those unfamiliar with this issue, I present the following essay. You be the judge.
A Mutation Story:
A gene known as HbS was the center of a medical and evolutionary detective story that began in the middle 1940s in Africa. Doctors noticed that patients who had sickle cell anemia, a serious hereditary blood disease, were more likely to survive malaria, a disease which kills some 1.2 million people every year. What was puzzling was why sickle cell anemia was so prevalent in some African populations.
How could a "bad" gene -- the mutation that causes the sometimes lethal sickle cell disease -- also be beneficial? On the other hand, if it didn't provide some survival advantage, why had the sickle gene persisted in such a high frequency in the populations that had it?
The sickle cell mutation is a like a typographical error in the DNA code of the gene that tells the body how to make a form of hemoglobin (Hb), the oxygen-carrying molecule in our blood. Every person has two copies of the hemoglobin gene. Usually, both genes make a normal hemoglobin protein. When someone inherits two mutant copies of the hemoglobin gene, the abnormal form of the hemoglobin protein causes the red blood cells to lose oxygen and warp into a sickle shape during periods of high activity. These sickled cells become stuck in small blood vessels, causing a "crisis" of pain, fever, swelling, and tissue damage that can lead to death. This is sickle cell anemia.
But it takes two copies of the mutant gene, one from each parent, to give someone the full-blown disease. Many people have just one copy, the other being normal. Those who carry the sickle cell trait do not suffer nearly as severely from the disease.
Researchers found that the sickle cell gene is especially prevalent in areas of Africa hard-hit by malaria. In some regions, as much as 40 percent of the population carries at least one HbS gene.
It turns out that, in these areas, HbS carriers have been naturally selected, because the trait confers some resistance to malaria. Their red blood cells, containing some abnormal hemoglobin, tend to sickle when they are infected by the malaria parasite. Those infected cells flow through the spleen, which culls them out because of their sickle shape -- and the parasite is eliminated along with them.
Scientists believe the sickle cell gene appeared and disappeared in the population several times, but became permanently established after a particularly vicious form of malaria jumped from animals to humans in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa.
In areas where the sickle cell gene is common, the immunity conferred has become a selective advantage. Unfortunately, it is also a disadvantage because the chances of being born with sickle cell anemia are relatively high.
For parents who each carry the sickle cell trait, the chance that their child will also have the trait -- and be immune to malaria -- is 50 percent. There is a 25 percent chance that the child will have neither sickle cell anemia nor the trait which enables immunity to malaria. Finally, the chances that their child will have two copies of the gene, and therefore sickle cell anemia, is also 25 percent. This situation is a stark example of genetic compromise, or an evolutionary "trade-off."
Gould and Eldredge came up with the theory to be a part of evolutionary theory, NOT separate from it, it is a minor piece as well, because it does help explain some of the sudden appearances of some species in the fossil record, and does not at all discredit phyletic gradualism.
Could you re-read what you posted above? You are saying that gradualism can be both sudden and gradual. It's like saying that black can be white. Evolutionists really need to make up their minds what the theory of evolution really is and stop saying that everything is evolution because we say so.
In actual fact though, Gould's saltationism is the biggest admission by someone who believes in evolution that evolution is false. Darwin had more than one reason to say that evolution was gradual. One of which was to distinguish it from creation. Another was because he knew that he could not justify sudden random changes of entire species. So actually Gould, while trying to save evolution destroyed it.
You were obviously calling me a Marxist. Your response now is:
au contraire!I said you embrace the same dogma that Marx embraced.
Either "the same dogma that Marx embraced" refers to Marxism, in which case you're denying the very words you said actually exist, or you're trying to spin this as meaning that I embrace evolution, a "dogma" which Marx also embraced. Either way it's painfully obvious that that's not what you said nor meant. You meant that I was embracing Marxism, pure and simple.
You have now abandoned even the appearance of intellectual honesty.
You: So does ID.
I would have thought ID would predict the absence of junk dna. Maybe when it gets to the level of a coherent theory, we'll have some way of making ID predictions.
So far, all I've seen is an analogy to a coding shop. Basically, coders make bugs, there are bugs in dna, therefore...
So I guess you're ruling out God Himself as the Designer, eh? (There's gotta be a better way to deal with malaria). And why do apes get scurvy? Did a chimp and a gorilla also eat the forbidden fruit!? (seriously, I've seen arguments that scurvy is a side effect of the fall; but why would God punish apes for the sin of Adam and Eve? Nothing like that in my Bible!)
Like Mark Twain and the weather (paraphrasing) "Obviously, God Himself made everything in New England, with the exception of the weather, which He had an apprentice..."
Speaking of nutball screeds, are you sure you want to rely on a Muslim fundamentalist (Harun Yahya) to argue your case?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.